I find it odd how people jump to conclusions about the theory of evolution.

@Kwek00 The problem with the question is that is usually just so binary, assuming and admitting of only one religion in two beliefs that look diametrically opposed but are not so; at worst creating a complete non-sequiteur in a bitter fog of intellectual and theological sterility. They are:

- I believe in God therefore not the Theory of Evolution (also read that as any other natural-sciences principle at similar issue),

versus:

- I believe the Theory of Evolution therefore not in God.


The omitted lines of thought are:

- I believe in the Hebrew/Christian God, and the Theory of Evolution,

or

- I believe in the creative "God" of [insert faith of choice], and the Theory of Evolution.

or

- I doubt / do not believe in, any god(s) but accept the Theory of Evolution.


AND, crucially,

- Whatever my religious opinions, I understand the word "Theory" means the original Hypothesis has been found basically to fit enough of the observations and tests so far to be credible, but is subject to continual review and refining as new evidence and analytical methods arise.


The notion that Religion (any faith and sect) and Science ask two totally different questions is either missed by not thinking about it, or is omitted wilfully.

So too is the point that Science works separately from Religion, and has to, because it is so co-operative and crosses all national and cultural boundaries.

@ArishMell A believe system, is a system that needs a "presupposition". You need to adopt something, that you have no proof off, and therefore you need believe. You don't need believe for things that you can proof... things that you can proof just are.

When you look at religion... it is a believe system.

While if you look at science, it's a methodical exercise to gain knowledge about things that are.

Everywhere you find religion that makes claims that science can measure, you see a conflict when the presupposed notions are challenged by the measurements. The believer has a couple of options:

1.a. Adopts the knew knowledge and abandons the believe system since it's been proven to be flawed

1.b. Adopts the knew knowledge and integrates it in the believe system. Therefore changing it's original message and thus creating a new believe system that is, at least currently, more sustainable but is still littered with presuppositions.

2. Deny the measurement all together in favor of the believe the system.

... there might be more options. I'm just writing this down on the fly. But something has to give OR we go into full denial-ism. In every option I can think off though... A system of presupposition IS NOT compatible with with a method that is actively seeking to get rid of presuppositions. And believers that reconcile these two things... in all honesty, I think they are just hanging on too something that they emotionally can't let go.

I totally disagree with the idea that:


Because science does work separately from religion. Science doesn't tolerate the believe in something that it can't proof. That's exactly why a big segment of religious people are constantly moaning about it. And why religious people that do integrate their religion into their scientific work, fall into existential crisis and stop functioning, once they figured out their stance doesn't make sense. For an example of that, look up Albert Einstein after physics went quantum, and Albert couldn't reconcile his presupposition that his God doesn't throw dice, and yet Quantum physics talks about probabilities constantly.

@Kwek00 I agree some people come unstuck by trying to reconcile science with their religious beliefs but that doesn't apply to all. In general the two philosophies can and do co-exist by many scientists accepting that they may agree on the research even if of different faiths (or none) personally.

That's not a matter of being intolerant of religion, only of suppositions within science that do not fit the observations, and the history of science has plenty of examples of arguments over hypotheses just too incredible for their contemporary knowledge.

@ArishMell

First of all, religion is not a philosophy. I think this explains it best:


SOURCE: https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/Philosophy_of_Religion.htm

Science, is also not a philosophy. Because science is a methodology to gather knowledge, while philosophy studies knowledge.

Science and religion do co-excist? What does that even mean? The only moments these two concepts are not in conflict, is when the knowledge obtained through the scientific method, does not conflict with presuppositions that followers of a religious orthodoxy internalized. The moments this does happen, conflict erupts. So yeah, they can be present in a similar sphere... as long as the religious dogma isn't questioned. And considering that science wants to find answers to questions, it's only a matter of time till human insanity is brought to the surface.

Science really doesn't care about toleration... It's just faced with questions, and it's trying to find the answer to those questions that fall within the scope that it can solve. It just doesn't care what people believe. The entire point of the scientific method is to come to a better and more objective understanding. And that will always be a threat to those people that believe that they already knew the answer by invoking fantastical narratives.

@Kwek00 I take you point about what is philosophy - actually, science was at one time considered, even called, a philosophy by its use of rational thinking.

By co-existing I mean that although science seeks answers by objective analysis of real things while religions stop at blind faith and personal interpretation, most scientists and theologians do not regard themselves as intellectual mutual enemies. They do different things. A lot of scientists are religious, just as a lot are not; their approach being that while religion asks "By Whom?" not "How?", science asks "How?" without worrying about any "whom".

So for example, you do not need invoke a god in explaining a Jurassic fossil or a beautiful photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope; but a religious person can accept the technical facts and figures but still say the fossil and the galaxy are both examples of God's work. Neither has denied or derided the other, although learning the cosmology may make the religious belief intellectually more difficult. Even the Vatican has an observatory!

Yes, there is the intellectual conflict presented between wanting to know more by evidence, and wanting to limit thinking to blind belief; but on the whole most people can differentiate between technical knowledge about Nature, and belief in the Supernatural.

I think the real problems come when one side wants to shut down the other; and there are theocratic organisations striving to enforce only their ideas - I suspect for motives beyond just theology -, but most of the animosity seems to be at a personal level.

@ArishMell
A theologian, doesn't have to be a religious person. What we are talking about is "religion" and "science". A theologian is someone that tries to discover the nature of the divine according to certain scriptures. They can be religious and actually believe what they are studying. But they can also be atheistic scholars that study religions. The reason why theology and religion don't perceive themselves as enemies is because they are both disciplines that study diffrent fields. The conflict only starts if the theology is taken for reality AND science disproves the theological conclussions and presuppositions. Just like those scientists can be religious... but they'll get into conflict when their own orthodoxy gets questioned by science.

Just pretending that we are just talking about concepts in a vacuum, makes it really easy to just pretend that all these terms can coexcist. But we are not talking about concepts, we are talking about human beings that internalized these concepts and apply them in daily life. By just looking around, and putting on the news, and investing times in the conversations that religious people bring to the table to complain about the academy and science should be enough to understand that this overly positive vieuw of religion and science not needing to have conflicts, is a bit of a pipe dream.


How much blood has been spilled over the centuries until we came to that point? The religious people first had to undo themselves from the cognitive dissonance that occurs. Then gradually over time a segment of that religious poppulation, through cultural evolution and generations dieing off, certain areas came to a point where they recognciled their own believe with new findings. Only to create a new orthodoxy. You are making post hoc analysis of the regions where this process occured and pretending that there doesn't need to be conflict when all the suffering and human madness has already occured in the past.


Do you ever turn on the news at all? ... because this is a pipe dream. Just look at all the really religious places in the world. Even in our own western world, there are huge pushbacks by religious people. Just look at the insanity going in the USA that is pushed by a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals. It's not by accident that a lot of far-right movements that want to establish an authoritarian regime have a base of religious believers.


A personal level? Then explain Poland, Hungary, the USA, all the muslim states, India, ... What the fuck are you talking about?

@Kwek00 There is no need to swear in an otherwise civilised discussion, but I do take your point. It was only a couple of decades or so ago that the Vatican finally admitted the Church of Rome had been wrong to silence Galileo Galilei some four hundred years ago.

I have noticed the rise in hard-line right-wing extremism, though I think the religious element in less important in Europe than in the USA.

The appeal in many European countries is led mainly by resistance to the large numbers of both refugees and "economic migrants", some legal but many illegal though desperate, from Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and many parts of Africa.

I know the USA is facing somewhat similar problems with immigrants from South America and Mexico, but I have the impression the religious fundamentalist groups were active long before immigration became a major matter there.


They are though, well-organised and desperate to push their causes - they even tried to muscle in on British schools when these became semi-privatised via so-called "Academy Trusts". They failed largely because the UK's education system has to meet certain standards with a minimum level of a coherent national curriculum; and this mitigates to a large extent against take-over attempts by self-interested groups like those I call the "Commercial Creationists".


I wonder though, why are such bands so determined? What drives them? With their minds not far removed from those of the Iranian mullahs and the warring factions in India, I can't help feeling the American fundamentalists are at heart, similarly terrified of anyone questioning or not following their blind, uncomprehending faith in one scripture they use as their prop and shield.

Is there though, something else? The theocracies are not so different from any dictatorship: different ideology but still run by cabals of like-minded, petty, cruel and often basically ignorant men with a naked love of power; but is the "religious right" in the USA of similar mind?

Can they say what they hope to gain by controlling schools and school libraries, and building so-called "museums" to their cause? Do they announce their aims for a nation that unlike perhaps Saudi Arabia, Constitutionally guarantees religious freedom?

I have sometimes challenged religious literalists to tell us from their own knowledge of the dogma, what those groups want; but none are willing to explain their motives. Perhaps they genuinely cannot, genuinely do not know.

@ArishMell I'm swearing, because it feels like you are just saying things. Have you ever took the time to think about this? To look at what the historical evolution is when it comes to religious folk pushing back to scientific discovery. How many times science has been denied and people have been threatened. Not to mention, permanently silenced. Even this webpage have bites and bites and bites of discussions stored in it's databank, because figures like Godspeed and Axeroberts keep pushing back and strawmanning theories that actually have evidence in favor of them... while theology has nothing of the sorts. It frustrates me to no end that people can just say these simplistic things that these arguments only relate to the private sphere, when you have entire movements in diffrent countries constantly pushing back against measured conclussions. It's happening all around us... and you have failed to pick up on it or just rationalise it away by forgetting our own western bloody history. Which is mind boggling to me.


Yes... And where does this pushback come from? You know... I'm going to serve it in the most blatant way... because conservatives don't dare too usher the foundation on which their arguments are build anymore. To say it in the words of Alexander H. Stephens, the vice-president of the confederacy, in a speech given in march of the year 1861: "They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.". They is referring too people that followed the principles of the enlightenment, which has culliminated in an ideological stance called: "Liberalism". These liberals are going against "the natural order". Who made the natural order? For any religious person, it's God. That's where a lot of xenophobia today has it's roots. And it goes all the way back too the 18th century. These ideas persist in the conservative zeitgeist. They get repackaged, they get sold in all kinds of variaties... but at the end of the day it's about "me being better then you because God made it so". As Burke said:


If you missed all that too... It's time to start reading philosophy and espescially reading up about conservatism. This isn't a secret, it's not a smear, people just don't read what these people are selling. The only thing they see, is the polished product that has been packaged in a way so that their voters either don't understand what it is in the box OR a way that they can avoid being called a "racist". At least these ideologues embrace the terms, but I guess the people against political correctness still are in conflict with the political stance that they are buying into.



Why all these questions? These things have been and are still being discussed at length by philosophers and political scientists. Heck, in the last 10 years, with the resurgence of the far-right in the USA, there has been a bulk of studies done. If you want to start somewhere? Start with Zeev Sternhell and his book on the "Anti-Enlightnement". I don't agree with everything he says, but he delivers a monumental work when it comes to conservative thought that challenges enlightenment principles.


Because people know, almost on an instinctive level, that individuals are formed inside a data-set. If you want to form individuals in a particulair way... then the only thing you have to do is to control the data-set that is being consumed. And when a small number of people do question the data-set, you remove them or reeducate them. That's how you create fundamentalists and loyal followers. All cults do it, all fundamentalists do it, all totalitarian authoritarian regimes do it, ... because they are all based on similair characterists. As the saying goes: "you are what you eat" ... well that is deffinatly true when it comes to the data you consume.

And again... the literature is out there. These phenomena have been studied over and over and over and over again... no one needs to reinvent the hot water by being online and just wondering how these things work. No, you should be in a library reading historians, philosophers and political scientists that have developed their work in an academic setting.

@Kwek00 obviously you have me wrong